Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout4.1.1997 Planning Board Minutes and AgendaTown AGENDA PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, April 1, 1997 6:30 p.m. Town Barn ITEM #1: Consideration of additions to the agenda. ITEM #2: Comments from the Chair. • Committee Reports ITEM #3: Approval of March 4 minutes. ITEM #4: Continued discussion of Preliminary Plan for Southwood subdivision, creating 7 lots on a new public road on the north side of Oakdale Drive. ITEM #5: Consideration of amendments to Section 8 regarding signs in the Central Commercial zoning district. (Vote required to send to public hearing) ITEM #6: Discussion of ulti-family zoning district. �AScob"jcoc ITEM #7: Adjourn. Please call the Planning Department if you cannot attend. 732-2104 extension 228 (this line is connected to voice mail) 101 East Orange Street • P.O. Box 429 • Hillsborough. North C'aroiina 27278 919-732-2104 a Fax: 919-844-2390 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD April 1, 1997 PRESENT: Ed Gill, Richard Bradford, Joel Brinkley, David Daniel, Jack Hughes, Louise Long, Pip Merrick, Chris Quinn, George Sagar PUBLIC: Tony Laws, Tony Whitaker, Steve Yuhasz, Harriet Hughes, Margaret Hauth T Gill called the meeting to order at 6:33 PM. Hughes asked that the board be provided basic information on the Scotswood development proposed for annexation as item 6a. ITEM #2: ITEM #3: Hughes moved to approve the minutes as written. Bradford seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #4: Hauth introduced the continued discussion of Southwood subdivision. She noted that the water, sewer, and stormwater plans were under review by the Town Engineer and NCDOT is reviewing the road design. She added that the Parks and Recreation Board recommends the payment of fees in lieu of land dedication for this development. MOTION: Hughes moved to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan to the Town Board with the conditions that the water, sewer, stormwater, and road design plans were approved by the proper agencies before construction begins. Merrick seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #5: Hauth said the proposed text amendments to the sign section of the ordinance where prepared and recommended by the Historic District Commission to assist them with sign concerns in the Central Commercial zoning district. She added the primary concern is the interior neon signs, which can be regulated by the zoning ordinance, but not by the commission. The general statutes establishing the commission strictly limits their jurisdiction to exterior elements. Brinkley asked about the impact of the changes on existing signs. Hauth said the Town has not previously pursued enforcing the amortization of non -conforming signs and she is not expecting to do so in this case. The signs will remain as long as the current businesses are open. He suggested removing the word `freestanding" from Section 8.7.d to make sign lighting be extinguished when a business is closed. The members discussed some of the other provisions and changes. Hauth noted that there has been a fair amount of unsolicited public support for the elimination of neon in the historic district. Members suggested that the business owners receive the proposed text and hearing announcement. MOTION: Hughes moved to send the amendments to public hearing, including the deletion of "freestanding" from section 8.7.d and two typographical corrections to 8.14.d. Brinkley seconded. VOTE: Unanimous. ITEM #6: Hauth said she had discussed the Planning Board's desire to study further the multi -family issue with the Town Board at their March retreat. She noted that the Town Board members were interested in a simple answer to the question `Based on what you know right now, do you recommend a change n the density? and if so, what is the new number?" MOTION: Sagar moved that the following statement be sent to the Town Board "The Planning Board recommends that the present multi -family zoning density of 6 units per acre be continued for the L1a47, eke � following reasons:" with the reasons to be crafted by Hauth from previous discussions and the discussion that will follow the motion. Quinn seconded. Long suggested that this appears to be a good opportunity to offer a compromise to the Town Board. She noted that they do not seem bent to 12 units, and may accept a lower number. She suggested the members agree on a lower number and submit it as the recommendation. Bradford asked if there are members who do not currently think some adjustment is needed. Hughes and Sagar indicated they are not convinced. Sagar said he would need to see some hard data that there is a supply and demand problem in the Hillsborough rental market. He noted he also questions the 6 units per acre, since no one knows where it come from. He has not seen any studies or data that give examples of increased density increasing the quality of life in an area. Quinn agreed with Sagar. Sagar noted that the hearing evidence only showed that a developer was seeking flexibility. He added that the Planning Board's responsibility is to protect Hillsborough, not respond to developers. Hughes said that the concept of small dispersed developments is consistent with the zoning and vice verse. The present density is _lower than surrounding jurisdictions, but based on those examples in surrounding jurisdictions, the developments of higher density don't appear to improve the quality of life. Long noted that the members are properly concerned about rental rates and maintenance. She added that these are two facets of a development which the government cannot control so they remain unknowns. She said she has personal experience, both with herself and friends who cannot find rental housing. She said because the increased density may provide the opportunity for increased affordability, she supports it. Bradford noted that he feels a change may be necessary, but he is not willing to increase the density solely based on the current ordinance and already available information. Quinn suggested a list of pros and cons. He noted that the only pro for increasing the density is the opportunity for more affordable housing. One con noted is there will be more people using our existing facilities and services. Gill asked if the members were ready to vote on the motion to recommend no change. They agreed they were. VOTE: 8-1 (Long opposed). The members asked Hauth to prepare a recommendation memo for the Town Board which highlights their concerns. She said she would send out a draft for comment before the board packet was distributed. ITEM #6a: Hauth indicated the location of the proposed Scotswood development on the map. She said the development was approved about ten years ago by Orange County to include more than 400 single family homes, about 200 apartments and a shopping center. This approval is still valid, but the developer is wanting to redesign the development to accommodate the current market. The County said that will trigger a full review of the development. The developer is investigating his options. If the development is annexed, it would be reviewed under the town ordinances. Hauth noted that this is a topic of a joint elected body meeting on April 9 at the Government Services Building. She added that the Town Board is currently investigating the possibility of annexation and is not near making a decision. If the Board decides to proceed with annexation, a public hearing will be called. Gill adjourned the meeting at 8:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Margark A. Hauth, Secretary